Hillary Clinton is at it again. In her cool new book “What Happened?” she comes up with any number of people and institutions to blame for her stunning defeat. She seems to blame everyone but herself.

At the same time she recycles the lies of John Podesta claiming falsely that I knew about Podesta’s email being hacked in advance, that I knew the content of the WikiLeaks October disclosures and that my brief and now totally public exchange with somebody calling themselves Guccifer 2.0 is anything but innocuous, benign and meaningless.

I have a feeling these questions will come up when I testify before the House Intelligence Committee next Tuesday. Let’s take a look at Hillary Clinton’s latest lies:

Page 345

“Then, on August 8, Trump’s longtime consigliere Roger Stone, who cut his teeth as one of Richard Nixon’s “dirty tricksters,” bragged to a group of Florida Republicans that he was in communication with a Assange and predicted that an “October surprise” was coming. This was a shocking admission, made in public, from Trump’s longest-serving political adviser. Stone made similar statements on August 12, 14, 15, and 18. On August 21, he tweeted, “Trust me, it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary”. This was particularly notable because, as I mentioned earlier, we have determined there was a good chance that John’s email might have been hacked, but didn’t know for sure. Stone kept at it over the next few weeks, even calling a Assange his “hero.”

I wasn’t the only one who noticed. At the end of August, Harry Reid, one of the congressional “gang of eight” who are briefed on the most sensitive intelligence matters, wrote a letter to FBI Director Comey that cited Stone’s claims and asked for a full and thorough investigation. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Reid wrote.”

Since its publication in September of 1986, It has enjoyed a long shelf life, first as a book that spent 14 weeks at the top of the New York Times best-seller list and then worming into nightmares as a TV mini-series in 1990 starring Tim Curry as the titular demonic clown/embodiment of children’s deepest fears. The monster, which a group of kids simply name “It,” manifests as something different for each person based on their specific fears — burning houses, lepers, a dead sibling — and, perhaps because of this, the story has maintained a compelling hold on our collective psyches for more than 30 years. This week, It hits theaters for the first time as a feature film, with a script that was originally set to be directed by Cary Fukunaga, before New Line decided to pivot to Andy Muschietti. (Fukunaga retains a writing credit on a reworked script).

But one controversial scene from King’s novel has dogged the book and subsequent adaptations. After defeating It, the kids get lost in the sewer tunnels on the way out; this is attributed in part to the fact that they’re losing their “connection” to one another. The solution is to bind them together, which Beverly — the only girl in the story’s main group of protagonists, called “the Losers” — says can only happen if each of the boys has sex with her. Where they’re timid and unsure, she’s confident and maternal. (King writes the first boy Eddie comes to her “the way he would have come to his mother.”) The sex is a “consensual” gang bang, with each of the boys losing his virginity, and thus entering manhood, through Beverly.

The ’80s was a bonkers time, but the orgy scene in particular has aged poorly; critics and readers looking back at it have called it everything from “disturbing” to “sick” to “insane.” A Reddit reader from last year simply asked, “WTF?” and generated over 500 comments. For almost ten exhaustive pages, King describes each of the boys having sex with Beverly and their orgasms as a version of “flying.” (You also get the sense that King is a bit of a size queen.) Beverly’s desires are positioned as a way for her to overcome her own fears around sex, but mostly the narrative centers on how the boys literally enter adulthood through Beverly’s vagina. Kingreleased a statement a few years ago through his fan site Stephenking.com, where he wrote, “I wasn’t really thinking of the sexual aspect of it… Intuitively, the Losers knew they had to be together again. The sexual act connected childhood and adulthood.” Perhaps most horrifying to modern sensibilities is that there is no talk of birth control, condoms, or a realization that a circle jerk would have sufficed.

When the new adaptation was announced, many wondered whether it would feature the scene, or some version of it (though the 1990 version eschewed it entirely). As fans often like to say: It’s canon. So does the new version feature a bunch of kids engaging in an orgy? The tl;dr version: No. But while it evades the obvious graphic horror and legal problems of minors simulating group sex, the new film retains a lot of the original scene’s problems — namely, its regressive gender politics and sexualization of its adolescent-girl lead.

The 2017 film flattens and reduces Beverly as a character in retrograde ways. It plays up the love triangle between Beverly (Sophia Lillis), Bill (the protagonist played by Jaeden Lieberher, who loses his little brother Georgie at the start of the film), and the chubby kid, Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), who pines for Bev and writes her a precocious love haiku. The climax of the film — when the Losers reconnect to defeat It after they initially disband — is prompted by It capturing Beverly and taking her to its lair. From there, it’s a classic tale of a damsel in distress: When Bev’s friends come upon her, she’s suspended in midair, like a pendant lamp. The boys eventually get her down, but she’s zoned out, her eyes clouded over. And just as in Sleeping Beauty,Ben kisses her and she awakens. She exists first and foremost as an object of their desire.

It’s an odd decision, in part because this is a more classically sexist narrative than what Fukunaga and Chase Palmer wrote in their original screenplay (which was leaked online after Fukunaga and the studio parted due to “creative differences”). In fact, some of the major differences between the old and new scripts involve Beverly in this way; the new script sexualizes her several times, like when she flirts with a middle-aged cashier at a pharmacy to help the boys steal some supplies. (In the Fukunaga script, the hypochondriac kid Eddie, played by Jack Dylan Grazer, fakes a medical emergency). In Fukunaga and Palmer’s version, Beverly flirts with zero old dudes and needs no saving. She goes with the boys to Pennywise’s lair, launches herself into a waterfall and goes headlong into the fight.

The Fukunaga script does have elements of physical horror that hew more closely to the book. But the focus is different: Beverly’s It manifests as blood — buckets of blood that spew from the sink — and Fukunaga makes it clear that the blood is a metaphor for her own fears around growing up and becoming a “woman,” something she fears would make her more of a sexual object to men, including her father. The new version, on the other hand, removes the physical horror, but leaves in the male gaze: Her father leers at her, calling her his “little girl” and attempting to harm her physically, but there is no blatant indication of sexual abuse. And while the bathroom blood remains, it’s not visually connected to her period or to her fear of her dad, making it seem displaced and random.

As Hollywood continues to push Satanic rebellion into the hearts and minds of children, the Disney’s Descendants movie series has taken the indoctrination to an entirely new level. The series has been a massive success for the Disney franchise as millions of children and pre-teens have tuned in. The movie series – a spinoff of prior Disney stories and the movie Maleficent – casts evil villains as heroes and celebrates wickedness, sinful rebellion and the occult. All the while it subtly and deceptively reinvents the story of the fall of Lucifer and his fallen angels.

DESCENDANTS VILLAINS: TRULY ROTTEN TO THE CORE

The temptation of the forbidden fruit is constantly promoted in the Descendants films.

The Descendants film is about the children of some of the more famous Disney villains (Maleficent, the Evil Snow Queen, Cruella De Vil, Captain Hook, etc.), who along with their parents have been banished to the “Isle of the Lost.” They are given a chance to infiltrate a peaceful kingdom and bring their wicked ways there. The film makes no secret in its symbolism of a bitten apple logo with a serpent-like vine wrapped around it. It is a not-so-subtle allusion to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Bible:

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” – Genesis 3:1-6.

Satan deceived Eve by distorting God’s words (The Lord did not forbid “every tree.” Only one), calling God a liar (telling her she would not die if she ate the forbidden fruit) and slandering God (telling her that the fruit would make her god-like, implying that God wanted to keep this knowledge and ability from her).

And just like that, what was once evil and dangerous to Eve became exciting and alluring. This is the precise deception of Descendants as it repeatedly portrays sinful rebellion, wickedness and witchcraft as fun and cool.

Continuing the theme of eating the forbidden apple, the original Descendants movie opens up with the song “Rotten To the Core”:

The first image of the video is Mal (the daughter of Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty), spray painting “Long Live Evil” on a wall.

The main character Mal spray paints the film’s mantra: Long Live Evil.

DISNEY’S DESCENDANTS 2: SATANIC INDOCTRINATION FOR KIDS

As Hollywood continues to push Satanic rebellion into the hearts and minds of children, the Disney’s Descendants movie series has taken the indoctrination to an entirely new level. The series has been a massive success for the Disney franchise as millions of children and pre-teens have tuned in. The movie series – a spinoff of prior Disney stories and the movie Maleficent – casts evil villains as heroes and celebrates wickedness, sinful rebellion and the occult. All the while it subtly and deceptively reinvents the story of the fall of Lucifer and his fallen angels.

DESCENDANTS VILLAINS: TRULY ROTTEN TO THE CORE

The temptation of the forbidden fruit is constantly promoted in the Descendants films.

The Descendants film is about the children of some of the more famous Disney villains (Maleficent, the Evil Snow Queen, Cruella De Vil, Captain Hook, etc.), who along with their parents have been banished to the “Isle of the Lost.” They are given a chance to infiltrate a peaceful kingdom and bring their wicked ways there. The film makes no secret in its symbolism of a bitten apple logo with a serpent-like vine wrapped around it. It is a not-so-subtle allusion to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Bible:

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” – Genesis 3:1-6.

Satan deceived Eve by distorting God’s words (The Lord did not forbid “every tree.” Only one), calling God a liar (telling her she would not die if she ate the forbidden fruit) and slandering God (telling her that the fruit would make her god-like, implying that God wanted to keep this knowledge and ability from her).

And just like that, what was once evil and dangerous to Eve became exciting and alluring. This is the precise deception of Descendants as it repeatedly portrays sinful rebellion, wickedness and witchcraft as fun and cool.

Continuing the theme of eating the forbidden apple, the original Descendants movie opens up with the song “Rotten To the Core”:

The first image of the video is Mal (the daughter of Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty), spray painting “Long Live Evil” on a wall.

The main character Mal spray paints the film’s mantra: Long Live Evil.

While of course the basic message is her rebellion and vandalism, her writing of “Evil” with the letters backwards is a part of the Occult Law of Reversal. This concept, strongly endorsed by satanist Aleister Crowley, teaches that occult powers can be enhanced when words or writings are done backwards:

“Those who want fame, power, spell-casting abilities, demons at their beck and call, and to recognize the godhead within, as well as to know the past, present, and future, he extolled to his apt students, must consistently, with intensity, practicetalking (reverse speech), walking, thinking, and playing phonograph records, backwards.This is a form of divination, and we are warned against this in the Holy Bible.” (source).

In our previous installment Wars of The Nephilim Kings, Beginning And End referenced an occult secret linked to the Nephilim. Something that many in the New Age and occult societies acknowledge is in the Bible. What do the symbols of Freemasonry, alchemy and many other mystic groups mean? What is the mystery they have been concealing for centuries? This article will explain from the pages of Scripture.

A SECRET HIDDEN IN THE BIBLE?

Among the foremost leaders of the mystery schools and New Age movement, there was an acknowledgment this special knowledge was contained in the pages of the Holy Bible. Albert Pike, 33rd degree Freemason philosopher, Confederate War General and Luciferian wrote:

“Therein is the secret fire, living and philosophical, of which all the Hermetic philosophers speak with the most mysterious reserve: the Universal Seed, the secret whereof they kept, and which they represented only under the figure of the Caduceus of Hermes. This is the grand Hermetic arcanum…. So that the Great Work is more than a chemical operation; it is a real creation of the human word initiated into the power of the Word of God.” – Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike, p 501-502.

Other esoteric sources also credit the Bible for having this knowledge:

“The reason…is that there exist powerful secrets hidden in the pages of this ancient book [the Bible]… a vast collection of untapped wisdom waiting to be unveiled.” – The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown, p. 489.

“The great Masonic truths, concealed among the learned of former ages under allegories and fables, are therefore lost– long long lost! But what is lost is not consequently destroyed – what is lost may be found, and all that is required is some clue or key. Fortunately there are applicable keys, held sacred by a body of men who know not their use, and the locks these keys fit are held sacred by all modern clergy, and the multitude of religionists. The first and best evidence of the truthfulness of the keys is their being used to interpret the Bible – that heavenly book of truth.” – The Ignorant Learned, p. 15-16.

What is this hidden knowledge? One source gives a subtle hint:

“I knelt beneath the cedars old and hoarThat streak with verdure snowy Lebanon;The mountain eagles o er the patriarchs soar,The thunder clouds of summer grimly frown,Where large and strong they stand those giants of renown” – Freemasonry in The Holy Land, p. 604.

THE FUSION OF OPPOSITES – GENESIS 6

The secret was revealed to the prophet Daniel.

The secret is The Fusion of Opposites – a term commonly used in the Christian community by Pastor Mike Hoggard of Bethel Baptist Church. What the occult societies and new age mystics have concealed is that the path to attaining godhood and immortality is found in Genesis 6 – the account of the fallen angelic Sons of God marrying the daughters of men and giving birth to the Nephilim giants – hybrid supermen who dominated the antediluvian world. The great expectation of the occult is a future age where the angels interact with humanity that can revive that era and turn men to gods.

The Biblical source for this is found in Daniel chapter 2. In this chapter, the power of the God of the Bible comes in direct conflict with the occult. King Nebuchadnezzar, ruler of ancient Babylon and the most powerful man on Earth at that time, woke from a nightmare so terrifying he called all his court astrologers, wizards and mystics to give him the interpretation. Adding to the challenge was that that the king could not remember the content of the dream – requiring clear supernatural insight to answer his request. The occult advisors to the king were powerless to respond:

“Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. 3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. 4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation. 5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.

6 But if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore shew me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. 7 They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. 8 The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. 9 But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof.

10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. 11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. 12 For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.” –Daniel 2:2-12.

The royal sorcerers told the king that it was impossible for any mere human to supernaturally look in the recesses of the king’s memory, find out what he dreamt and then interpret that dream for him. This provoked the king to order the death of any wise man. The prophet Daniel was living in captivity in the king’s court in Babylon at that time. When he heard of the decree to kill the wise men he requested an audience with the king and then prayed to God for the answer:

The “powers-that-be no longer seem interested in drawing the boundary between ‘right’ and ‘perverse’ sex.”

by Mark Regnerus, The Public Discourse:

Two new studies use a small amount of old data to try to undermine the idea that it is abusive or damaging for adults to have sex with minors. Disturbingly, no one seems to be challenging this conclusion.

The Archives of Sexual Behavior, a journal I respect and have recently published in and reviewed for, has printed a pair of studies by Bruce Rind in the past year. The recent publication of his work marks a significant, unnoticed, and unnerving turn in the dissemination and consumption of research on sex and sexuality.

Almost twenty years ago, both houses of Congress and the American Psychological Association condemned Rind’s claims, published in the August 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, that the long-term damages caused by child sexual abuse are overestimated. I would have thought that nearly twenty years, a concurrent resolution of Congress, and a fair bit of social trauma would have convinced him to shift topics.

But I was wrong. His new studies are on the same theme: sex between adults and minors as young as thirteen. Rind is banking on a more amenable political and scholarly atmosphere in which to conclude comparable things. And from the sound of it—or rather, the utter lack of sound—he has gotten his wish. There has been no congressional concern, no APA scrutiny, just silence.

So what do the studies say?

Old Data and Small Sample Sizes

The first study concerns adolescent girls’ first same-sex sexual experience, and mirrors an earlier one on boys. The data Rind uses, curiously enough, are the Kinsey data, collected by the famous early student of American sexual behavior Alfred Kinsey. These are old data—most of the participants were born before 1930—but that does not mean they have no value. Rind praises Kinsey because his was not a clinical sample, studying people who are seeking help of some sort. Agreed. But Kinsey is hardly representative. I don’t believe Kinsey’s data are a good guide to understanding what behavior was normative in its time, or in ours, given his nonrandom approach to locating participants. But neither do I believe that Kinsey’s interviewees were lying.

The second study is on the “long-term adjustment and functioning” of boys who experienced their first same-sex sexual experience with adult men, using data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). These data have a comparative advantage over Kinsey’s by being far more recent and population-based. Both articles seek to “test,” and purport to undermine, the child sexual abuse (CSA) framework in which “all minor-adult sexual interactions are considered abusive, traumatic, and psychologically injurious by nature.”

On average, girls in the Kinsey data set were fifteen years old at the time of their first same-sex sexual event with a woman (who was, on average, twenty-six years old). For men in the NHSLS, their mean age was fifteen and their partner was twenty-eight. In each study, fewer than half of the respondents describing such early same-sex experience currently identified as homosexual. Most of the women’s first experiences were what Rind termed “outercourse,” involving no oral sex or penetration (i.e., less invasive). The opposite was the case with boys, where oral sex was reported by 67 percent, and anal sex by 29 percent. In other words, these encounters were invasive and “severe,” Rind admits. “Despite this,” he argues, their “adjustment was not inferior to that in the comparison groups.” He makes this claim while admitting that only 19 percent of such male respondents said the sex was “wanted at the time,” well below the 54 percent who experienced first sex with age-similar peers. Sixty-seven percent “went along” and 14 percent report being forced, well above the 3 to 4 percent among other scenarios.

However, both Kinsey and the NHSLS suffer from very small sample sizes in Rind’s population of interest. We are talking about only twenty-six cases of girl-woman sexual events from a study that sought participants wherever it could find them, and twenty-one cases of boy-man sex from a population-based study. But since we are talking about very small samples, Rind is able to conclude that there is no difference among groups in having been forced into first sex. That is not how scientific literatures ought to be built, nor legal cases won. (But it is.)

Does Sex with Adults Have Negative Consequences for Minors?

The central claim of Rind’s studies, however, is that minor-adult sex tends not to be reported as a bad experience, as unwanted, or as one with longstanding negative consequences. Eighty-five percent of women who said their first same-sex sexual experience was as a minor with an adult told Kinsey interviewers they “much” enjoyed the experience. Sixty-three percent of comparable men reported “positive” reasons for participating in the act (an estimate far below that of those respondents who first had sex with a similar-age peer). Fewer than 10 percent said they knew their first (male) partner well.

Nevertheless, Rind believes the evidence vindicates him: “Men whose first postpubertal same-sex sexual experience was as a minor with an adult were as well adjusted as controls.” Such men reported to be “just as healthy, happy, sexually well adjusted, and successful in educational and career achievement.” It’s a tough conclusion to swallow. Recall, for example, the furor over atheist Richard Dawkins’s assertion about his boarding school sexual abuser, claiming that “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” Rind concludes similarly about teen girls’ first same-sex experience. This result, he holds, “is sharply at odds with the pathology perspectives” (that is, the sexual abuse narrative). In fact, the results “showed that same-sex attracted adolescent minors were especially receptive to these relations.”

As a social scientist of sexual behavior who is surprised by very little, I’m willing to admit that it is possible for this to be the case, while holding firmly to the assertion that such events remain diabolical and an unequivocal abuse of power. Moreover, the emotional consequences of teen sex with adults are something that may never be readily accessible to “discursive consciousness,” those experiences and emotions to which humans have conscious access, can understand, and verbally express and evaluate.

Pleasure, Power, and Sexual Exploitation

I ran Rind’s studies past a friend of mine who had experienced it all—childhood molestation by an opposite-sex older relative and then a sustained relationship of same-sex “outercourse” initiated by a counselor who was eighteen years her senior. Like many in Rind’s study, she “went along” due to the counselor’s manipulation. She spoke of willingness, well short of enthusiasm, in order not to threaten the relationship. The sexual activity became mutual. And yet it was all exploitative, and deeply damaging.

At twenty years old, she was legally of age. Yet she sees obvious parallels between minor-adult relationships and therapist-client relationships: there are inherent power imbalances in both that make sexual contact of any kind wrong. Even mutual desire or initiation by the youth or the client cannot erase these power differences, as all professional and legal establishments used to understand.

Turkish designer Dilara Findikoglu’s presented her Spring/Summer 2018 collection at London Fashion Week and it was nothing less than a satanic Black Mass. Indeed, the event took place at the altar of St Andrew Church in London and incorporated heavy occult and satanic symbolism. In short, the event summed up everything the fashion world is truly about.

While Dilara Findikoglu is said to an “up-and-coming rebel of the fashion world”, she’s perfectly in line with the industry’s philosophy. She’s not rebelling at all, she’s doing what exactly the type of stuff “they” want her to do.

For this reason, celebrities such as Rihanna, FKA Twigs, and Grimes wear seen wearing Findikoglu’s creations.

The backdrop is basically a mish-mash of Masonic-inspired imagery. On each side are the Masonic twin pillars. Between the pillars is the letter G inside an inverted pentagram. Underneath it is the all-seeing eye inside a hexagram. There is also the Masonic square and compass in there. To top it off, the runway was a checkerboard pattern. Here’s a classic Masonic painting for comparison.

In this heavily occult context, the models were dressed and arranged with a plethora of symbols. Of course, this had to be combined with the current agenda of androgyny and blurring of the genders.

This model is wearing a bride’s dress, complete with a white veil. On her face is drawn a sigil.

A sigil is an inscribed or painted symbol considered to have magical power. The term has usually referred the pictorial signature of a demon or other entity and is used in ceremonial magic. The particular sigil on the model’s forehead is strongly reminiscent to the Sigil of Lucifer.

In short, the model is basically a “bride of Satan”.

Historically, a Black Mass is a ritual characterized by the inversion of the Traditional Latin Mass celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church and the desecration of Christian objects for Satanic purposes. The fact that models walk around a Church wearing devil horns recalls the concept of Black Mass.

The Vatican embassy in Washington D.C. has four diplomatic staff, and it is now admitting that at least one diplomat has been found with child pornography—but the church will not allow him to be prosecuted.

As a diplomat, the unidentified priest has immunity from prosecution for most crimes under the Vienna Convention. The State Department requested that the Vatican waive immunity so that the individual could be properly prosecuted on Aug. 21. Instead of allowing the priest to be charged, tried and potentially convicted of possession of child pornography, the Vatican recalled him. In other words, the Vatican protected the priest from prosecution.

According to the Associated Press, “The Vatican declined to identify the priest, but said he was currently in Vatican City and that Vatican prosecutors had launched their own probe.” Going further, the AP wrote, “The State Department said it had asked the Vatican to lift the official’s diplomatic immunity on Aug. 21. It said that request was denied three days later. For the State Department to make such a request, its lawyers would have needed to be convinced that there was reasonable cause for criminal prosecution.”

Possession of child pornography was made illegal in 2013 under the Vatican’s criminal code. If found guilty, the Vatican can sentence the high-ranking priest to up to two years and a fine of 10,000 Euros, which is quite a contrast from the sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison as well as steep fines in the U.S.

The decision to recall the priest has several American Catholic leaders up in arms, protesting the Vatican’s decision to disallow him from being prosecuted. The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, was cited by the Globe and Mail as describing the allegations as “serious.” He said the Vatican should be “forthcoming with more details.”

“We reaffirm that when such allegations occur, an immediate, thorough and transparent investigation should begin in co-operation with law enforcement and immediate steps be taken to protect children,” DiNardo said in a statement.

Pope Francis has been less than truthful with his promise of zero tolerance for child rapists, predators, pedophiles and sex offenders. In February, as TFTP reported, he quietly reduced sanctions against some Catholic priests who were seeking mercy from the church.

Then in May, the pope acknowledged there was a backlog of 2,000 cases of alleged abuse that were not being addressed as quickly as some advocates for children would like to see occur in a more expeditious manner. The acknowledgement comes just a few months after Marie Collins, an Irish pedophile-priest-sex-abuse-survivor, resigned from Pope Francis’ sex abuse advisory commission. She resigned amid “unacceptable” levels of resistance from the Vatican in helping to prosecute pedophile priests.

Behind the psychedelic visuals of Travis Scott’s video Butterfly Effect is a hidden message, told through symbolism: Travis Scott’s introduction to the elite’s entertainment industry and the Monarch mind control system.

Travis Scott is a rapper and producer who began his career behind the scenes, collaborating with the likes of Kanye West, Jay-Z, and Madonna. He then launched his solo career and, with the hit song Antidote, Scott found commercial success. Soon, he was propelled to the forefront of the rap game. After the release of his second album, Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Scott cemented his trademark sound and got a taste of superstardom. Shortly after, things started to become … symbolic.

While Scott is sometimes criticized for “rapping about nothing”, a clear theme has emerged from his latest works: Monarch programming. (If you don’t know what that is, please read this article first).

Indeed, it appears that Scott has been recruited to promote the elite’s MK symbolism to his hordes of young fans. When a new artist shows talent, charisma and star potential, it doesn’t take long before they get recruited by the elite. Afterwards, their work becomes “tainted” with their agenda. Hence, Butterfly Effect.

If you need immediate proof, this screenshot taken from the video sums everything up in a single, powerful image:

Travis spits out butterflies after he gets hit by lightning (representing electroshock therapy).

Before I go further into the meaning of Butterfly Effect, let’s look at some of the things Travis has been associated with in the past months. They illustrate that the symbolism of Butterfly Effect is not simply about aesthetics, but about Travis Scott being used by the occult elite to promote its Monarch system.

Travis Scott in SZA’s “Love Galore”

Shortly before the release of Butterfly Effect, Travis Scott appeared in SZA’s video Love Galore. The song is apparently about SZA regretting getting back with an ex-boyfriend (played by Scott). However, the symbolism of the video takes things to another, darker level.

SZA then goes to the window and looks outside, towards someone waiting in a car.

Among her elite social circles in Washington, DC, and the Hamptons, Washington Post religion writer Sally Quinn did not keep her use of black magic a secret. In a lengthy and glowing profile, the Washingtonian reveals that Quinn’s fascination and outright use of the dark arts were just another part of her wide and varied social scene.

Quinn has consulted psychics for years and, until recently, would conduct readings herself for family and friends.

“She used to take her cards out to the little thatched hut,” recalls writer Leslie Marshall, an ex-wife of Quinn’s stepson Dino Bradlee and one of Sally’s closest friends. “The place has the right ambience for the occult.”

Ouija boards, astrological charts, palm reading, talismans—Quinn embraces it all. And yes, she has been in contact with her husband since his passing. Through a medium. Repeatedly.

Some friends have voiced reservations that Quinn is now showing all her cards, so to speak. “Don’t play up the voodoo too much,” one implored. But Sally does nothing by halves. She reveals that, in her less mellow days, she put hexes on three people who promptly wound up having their lives ruined, or ended.

Quinn’s late husband, former Washington Post executive editor Bill Bradlee, died in 2014. Therefore, the news that Quinn has used the occult to contact his spirit means that while working as a regular and prolific religion columnist for the Post, Quinn was a practitioner of the dark arts. (She started as a young woman).

Bradlee was also a vice president of the Washington Post right up until his death, was well aware of his wife’s practices, and apparently, did nothing during those years she deceived his trusted readers.

Readers were not only not informed of Quinn’s occultism; they were misled and lied to about her beliefs, which she claimed were only that of a curious non-believer.

As an example, in November of 2011, Quinn published a column celebrating the five year anniversary of On Faith, which she co-founded with Jon Meacham, the man most famous for destroying Newsweek. In the column, Quinn described her beliefs and non-beliefs in this way:

Although I called myself an atheist when we started this site, I no longer do[.] … I don’t call myself agnostic. That doesn’t work for me. It simply means you don’t know. By that definition we are all agnostic. The pope is agnostic. We may believe, but we don’t know. I wouldn’t call myself a seeker, either. If I had to define myself, I would say I was a learner. And this has been an extraordinary learning experience.

That is as far as she goes. Quinn says nothing about her decades-long belief in the occult or her occult practices. This is a lie of omission so large it is beyond description. Regardless, it is still a lie.

In fact, Quinn believes in the dark arts to a point where is certain she possesses the ability to murder people through the power of a hex, and on three occasions, with murder in her heart, she used that power. In her own mind, she is responsible for the deaths of three people whose only sin was offending her in some way.

This demonic woman was/is a high-profile religion writer for the Washington Post, everyone in D.C. knew this, and no one thought the readers should.

The day will live in infamy, the attacks planned well in advance. Bin Laden and so-called “crazed Arabs” had nothing to do with destroying the twin towers and striking the Pentagon.

The Big Lie persists. Most Americans no longer believe the the 9/11 whitewash commission’s official account of what happened.

Bin Laden was an unwitting CIA asset transformed into “Enemy Number One.” In December 2001, he died of natural causes in a Pakistani hospital, widely reported at the time – including by The New York Times (several months later), Fox News and the BBC.

Obama didn’t kill Osama. In September 2001, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said he was admitted to a Rawalpindi, Pakistan hospital on September 10, 2001. France’s Le Figaro reported:

“Dubai…was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July (2001).”

“A partner of the administration of the American Hospital…claims that (bin Laden) stayed (there) between the 4th and 14th of July (and) received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis.”

“(During the same period), the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking (the hospital’s) main elevator (to) bin Laden’s room.”

Pakistani intelligence confirmed his December 2001 death. Yet the myth of his responsibility for 9/11 persists. The FBI later admitted it had no evidence linking him to the attack.

The official 9/11 account was fabricated to conceal state-sponsored terrorism, dark forces in Washington responsible for what happened.

It became a pretext for waging endless wars on humanity at home and abroad. It was the wrong time to be Muslim in America.

They’ve been disgracefully victimized, vilified, and persecuted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence, activism, and charity – innocent men and women bogusly called terrorists, used for political advantage.

More than any other ethnic/religious group, Western discourse unfairly portrays Muslim Arabs stereotypically as culturally inferior, dirty, lecherous, untrustworthy, religiously fanatical, and violent.

Ongoing US wars against predominantly Muslim countries, along with Trump’s travel ban against targeted Islamic ones is a cross millions of people threatening no one are forced to bear because of Washington’s imperial ruthlessness.

Following 9/11, America became a fascist police state. GW Bush’s declared war on terrorism was US state-sponsored terrorism on humanity.

A week after 9/11, congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) declared it – on the phony pretext of combating forces “responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

Bush/Cheney took full advantage – flagrantly abusing executive power, most congressional members acting as co-conspirators.

Bush/Cheney’s Military Order Number 1 let them usurp authority to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest any non-citizens (later citizens as well) anywhere in the world if involved in international terrorism – real or fabricated – holding them indefinitely without charge, due process or judicial fairness.

Post-9/11, torture became official US policy, Guantanamo symbolizing ruthless injustice against Muslims in nearly all cases guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, uninvolved in violence or other criminal actions.

Anyone designated a threat to US national security is vulnerable to arrest, imprisonment and indefinite detention – how police states operate worldwide.

Taylor Swift’s Look What You Made Me Do is said to be about her poking fun at her foes and herself. However, the symbolism of the video directly refers to the sinister side of the entertainment industry and its obsession with mind control.

Taylor Swift is not new to the game. Back in 2009, in the article The 2009 VMAs: The Occult Mega-Ritual, I explained how Swift was part of a televised ritual. It was Taylor Swift’s “initiation” into the entertainment industry. After she was “humiliated” by Kanye West during an acceptance speech, Swift re-emerged, dressed in red, as a new and consecrated artist. This is when Swift’s work began to be tainted with the codes and symbolism of the occult elite.

Eight years later, at the 2017 VMAs, Taylor Swift premiered her new video Look What You Made Me Do(known as LWYMMD on Twitter). The message of the video couldn’t be clearer: She is now a full fledged industry slave. What does that mean? Read on.

Most mass media sources who’ll attempt to “decode” this video will point out the disses directed at Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry, and her ex-boyfriend Calvin Harris. However, by doing so, they ignore about 90{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} imagery of the video. There is something else going on.

To those “in the know”, the video can almost be read as a MK-Symbolism 101. Indeed, the video taps into all of the imagery and concepts that have been discussed on this site for years. Those who rule the entertainment industry need to have this Monarch culture constantly at the forefront of popular culture. Now it is Taylor Swift’s turn to bring it in full force, with a video that is breaking records of YouTube and Spotify.

LWYMMD is indeed a blatantly obvious Monarch manifesto. (If you’ve never heard of Monarch programming, a deviation of the CIA project MKULTRA, read this article first).

The main goal of Monarch is to program slaves to have multiple personas that can be triggered at will. Beta Programming (aka Sex Kitten programming) is used to create sex slaves to be trafficked in the shady elite underworld.

Newsflash: The entertainment industry is full of Beta Kittens. Newsflash: The elite brags about this in mass media using the likes of Taylor Swift.

They Made Her Do It

To understand the true mind state of the video, one doesn’t need to look much further than the title: Look What You Made Me Do. Industry handlers own Taylor Swift and they make her do whatever is needed to push their agenda.

The video symbolically describes what happens to stars who get caught up in the higher levels of the occult entertainment industry. Although they are insanely successful, they also become slaves to the industry, with no life of their own. Their sound, image, and even their personality are shaped at will by those behind the scenes.

The video doesn’t only portray Swift as a slave of the industry, it also announces that she has paradoxically “ascended” to the status of Grand Priestess. Sounds ridiculous? Maybe it would be ridiculous … if the video wasn’t so blatant about it.

The Video

Mass media has been hard at word “decoding” the video. However, most critics completely miss the main underlying thread of the video.

“The video is good fun, if a little bit mad; it’s certainly the most brazen and ambitious pop music video since Beyoncé dropped Lemonade in the spring of last year, replete with pyrotechnics and dozens of costume changes. But it doesn’t amount to much more than a succession of disconnected images.”– The Guardian, Look what you made her do: decoding the disses of Taylor Swift’s new video

The video is not a “succession of disconnected images”. It is actually very linear and coherent. However, in order to understand the narrative at hand, one needs to a thing or two about Monarch programming.

SGT Report is the corporate propaganda antidote. Providing exclusive original content and interviews with some of the best known voices in the world of economics and precious metals. SGT Report is your daily source for truth in a time of universal deceit.